← All Phrases

“rectification u/s 154”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154426 judgments

The decision most relied on for rectification u/s 154 is Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. MallikarjunBhavanappa Tirumale (1 SCR 890), cited in 18 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rectification u/s 154

Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. MallikarjunBhavanappa Tirumale
1 SCR 890 · 1960 · Reported
18
citing judgments

An error is not considered 'apparent from the record' for rectification purposes if it requires a lengthy process of reasoning or involves debatable points where multiple opinions are possible. A decision on a debatable point of law does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.

Judgments citing rectification u/s 154

Jagatpal Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1688/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80G

short), 1961 on 22.03.2013the short term capital gain of Rs 5868776/- has been taxed @ flat 30%. The Assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as there were certain mistakes in the assessment order. The mistakes included non-adjustment of brought forward losses; non-adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation

Sadhwani Wood Product Private Limited, Kota vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 922/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5Section 69A

issue was a debatable, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer for making the rectification u/s 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and it is held that the provisions of sect ion 154 ... were not applicable in the present case and the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the rectifications u/s 154 of the Act. ¢ Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Kanpur Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 3 TMI 279 has held: Taxation of income - whether the surrendered

Sadhwani Wood Product Private Ltd, Kota vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5Section 69A

issue was a debatable, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer for making the rectification u/s 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and it is held that the provisions of sect ion 154 ... were not applicable in the present case and the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the rectifications u/s 154 of the Act. ¢ Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Kanpur Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 3 TMI 279 has held: Taxation of income - whether the surrendered

Uti Spectrum Fund, Mauritius vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3558/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

delay. Against the said intimation u/s 143(1), the Appellant apart from preferring appeal before the CIT(Appeals), also filed petition for rectification u/s 154 of the mistake in the said intimation. In this regard, please note that the Assessing Officer has rectified the said mistake by passing order u/s

Mstc Ltd, Kolkata vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250

income interim vide intimation u/s 143(1) on 22/09/2022 against which both appeal before CIT(A) 3 MSTC Ltd. : AY: 2021-22 and rectification u/s 154 before AO were filed and were/are pending disposal before the order u/s 143(3) was passed. 9. For that without prejudice to any other ... income an addition made u/s 143(1) which is under appeal before CIT(A) as well as under application for rectification u/s 154 before AO, both pendente lite and without going into the issue of the addition of contingent liability when AO had the full opportunity

Arya Vysya Sangha, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hubli

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1270/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

immediately sent to the assessee by email. If the assessee was not satisfied from the processing of return, either he may approach for rectification u/s 154 or may appeal before the FAA. But, here the assessee filed appeal with delay which is not reasonable cause. 8. Considering the rival submissions

Arya Vysya Sangha, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hubli

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1269/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

immediately sent to the assessee by email. If the assessee was not satisfied from the processing of return, either he may approach for rectification u/s 154 or may appeal before the FAA. But, here the assessee filed appeal with delay which is not reasonable cause. 8. Considering the rival submissions

Prasad Vijaykumr Kulkarni, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 850/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak and Ms. Arrchena ShettyFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 89

assessee on compassionate grounds owing to assessee's being jobless. 10.7 Para no. 3 of assessee's submission has been caption as Rectification u/s 154. Submission put forth in this para has no connection with assessment proceedings, hence not considered. 10.8 Para no. 4 has been captioned as Capital Receipts

Anil Agarwal, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1477/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Saranakantha B., A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 90

assessee preferred a rectification under the provisions contained u/s 154 of the Act. The AO/CPC passed the order of Rectification u/s 154 of the Act vide order dated 12.8.2020. Again, aggrieved by the order of AO/CPC dated 12.8.2020 the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC

Subhash Ishvarbhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction the ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 754/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

u/s 143(1) dated 24.12.2021 resulting in a tax demand of Rs. 5,95,980/- The appellant preferred a petition for rectification u/s 154, and the CPC in the order dated 28.12.2021 reiterated its earlier contention. Aggrieved by the said reject the appellant has preferred this appeal

Vishal Mumbai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mumbai vs. ITO(E) 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 237/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChacheddFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel filed paper book comprising copies of various documents filed before the assessing officer and referred a copy of application for rectification u/s 154 vide letter dated 17.01.2017 stating that Form No. 10 along with copy of resolution passed by the Board of Trustees for the purpose of section

Vishal Mumbai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mumbai vs. ITO(E) 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 236/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Counsel filed paper book comprising copies of various documents filed before the assessing officer and referred a copy of application for rectification u/s 154 vide letter dated 17.01.2017 stating that Form No. 10 along with copy of resolution passed by the Board of Trustees for the purpose of section

Silverline Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-31(2)(1)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to allow the claim

ITA 2604/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

days. It has been stated in the order that the assessee also did not file proof of filing of application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, hence, the delay was not condoned. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that there was a reasonable cause for delay

Silverline Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-31(2)(1)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to allow the claim

ITA 2603/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

days. It has been stated in the order that the assessee also did not file proof of filing of application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, hence, the delay was not condoned. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that there was a reasonable cause for delay

Silverline Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-31(2)(1)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to allow the claim

ITA 2602/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

days. It has been stated in the order that the assessee also did not file proof of filing of application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, hence, the delay was not condoned. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that there was a reasonable cause for delay

Silverline Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-31(2)(1)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to allow the claim

ITA 2601/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

days. It has been stated in the order that the assessee also did not file proof of filing of application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, hence, the delay was not condoned. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that there was a reasonable cause for delay

Silverline Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-31(2)(1)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to allow the claim

ITA 2600/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

days. It has been stated in the order that the assessee also did not file proof of filing of application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, hence, the delay was not condoned. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that there was a reasonable cause for delay

High Volt Electricals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward -1, Pahghar Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4663/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 High Volt Electricals Private Limited Ward-1, Palghar, Ito, Mumbai J 46 Midc Tarapur Boisar, Vs Palghar, Maharashtra-401506 Pan: Aabch 7678 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 44A

income upto the return income filed by the assessee of Rs. 4,69,86,700/- without making any addition. Subsequently, the assessee filed rectification u/s 154 of the Act before the assessing officer for considering the income tax rate at 25% as per turnover of the assessee instead ... dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Heard both the sides and also perused the material on record. The assessee has filed rectification u/s 154 of the Act to consider the tax rate @ 30% instead of tax rate 25% as the turnover of the assessee was below

Calcutta Mathematical Society, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 697/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

filed an application u/s 154 of the Act for rectification and assessee was in the impression that since he has already filed rectification u/s 154 of the Act and unless it has been decided he is not entitled to file an appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that

Bharat Kunverji Kenia, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed the statistical purposes

ITA 3528/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi, AR
Section 143(1)Section 154

pursuing alternative remedies under the law, this is sufficient in view of the facts that the application dt. 19.04.2016 of your appellant for rectification u/s 154 to CPC has remained to be disposed off is the cause for not filing the present appeal in time by 15.04.2016 and therefore